It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More Lights In Arizona

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
this is a bit hard to read, but the big diagonal road near the top of the map is the same as the 60 in kinglizard's map, and the little red thumbtack is the W Corrinne Dr address for reference:



there's a pretty big butte formation to the west, and another more to the southwest -- ScislaC, do either of those look like reasonable locations to you? if you need help figuring this out here's a link to the actual terraserver page:

terraserver.microsoft.com... A%7c4300+W+Corrine+Dr%2c+Glendale%2c+AZ+85304

You might want to zoom in a bit, cause i guess the 101's not a big enough highway to get the dark lines like the 60 and I17 do.

as for palo verde check this out:

[img]http://mq-mapgend.websys.aol.com:80/mqmapgend?MQMapGenRequest=FDR2dmwjDE%3byt2l%26FDJnci4Jkqj%2cMMCJ%3aHOEvq%3bab50wr%3a%29u2lqurl%26%40%24%3a%26 %40%245%264bs%26wbs%26ESEKGF%3dTPWIK%2cbxg67a%26%3d2n1u8n0%40%24%3a%26%40%24%3a%26f2w9%40%3aHOHQJ%3babxqr2%3a%29u2lgzz0%26%40%24%3a%26%40%24%3ahu1l%26 %26FDEmvqjHqjwjg%7c%14D%13%13%17OHM%26ab0u6t%3a%29u2l942g%26z%240%264y%3a9%40bs%26%3d22h%407%3a%29u2g%266%24%2e9u1%3a%29u%24%2e9a1%3a%290%24%2e9wb%3a% 290%24%2e901%3a%29a%24%2e941%3a%29u2%3a%29at%3a%29u7g%26%3d2n5%40%5fgd%40%5flh%40%5f0u%402n%26%3d2ll%40a0%26%3d1n%260%24%2el0%24%2e94%24%2ehf%24%2e96z %3a%29a7%3a%290a%3a%294t%3a9u%24%2e96t%3a9u%24%2e9z8%3au%40%5fnuf%24nh%40%5f0h%40bx%26%3d229%402%3a%29zb%3a%29z%24%2eda%24%2el0%24%2egr%24%2eh%40%5fl5 %40%5fnh%40%5fs%26%3d1x%26%3da%3a%29urg%26%3daw%26%3d20h%40%5f0%26%3dalq%402%3a%29u1l%260%24%2e9w2%3al6%24%2e94b%3au%40%5fndy%245%26%3dbn9%407%3a%2907 g%26u7%3a%29u8l%26u%24%2e9ry%3a%294%24%2e9y8%3a%29u8a%26%3d825%40%5fn96%24%2ela1%3a%29yy%3a%29025%26%3d2x%26%3d2n9%4025%26%3dr2%26%3da%3a%29a2%3a%29a1 %3a%29u8%3a%29ay%3al%40%5fld%40z%3a%29ua5%26u%24%2e1r2%3ad%40%5f5h%40r%3a%29a7%3ag%40%5fnqa%24%2e9u%24%2e9%40%5fxqr%24%2e00%24%2e9yt%3a%29a%24%2eq[/im g]

it's starting to look like those lights might have BEEN at palo verde. this is getting interesting.




posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Darkside: Didn't look like XMas decorations to me or my friend from my car = )

Phreak: So that's where the new stadium went! Seriously the only thing I ever really heard about it was when they wanted to put it down in Tempe and got shot down... (did the Cardinals really deserve a new stadium anyway?) Sorry, off-topic... Honestly in reviewing that little map and recalling which way I had to look, it was definitely in the direction of Luke (it seems like it may have been a bit further S and a little more to the W though, then again floating lights in the air are difficult to guage distance of... like how Venus looks closer if it's brighter, especially since there's no real reference objects to speak of). Anyway, that's just general direction, and I'm going based on my mind's eye. I should have a chance to take the 101 route again possibly tomorrow evening. Actually, there's a very good chance I'll be able to.

I'm fine if it's easily debunked, especially cuz I'd just like to know what it was. As I see it, the most likely would be flares... however, there was no perceived loss of altitude over the few minutes we saw them, just them getting closer to each other. And given I have no military background and have only seen flares on the Discovery Wings channel, I'm probably not the best person to try and judge if it was or wasn't.

Anyway, definitely in the direction of Luke AFB. And having seen the original Phoenix lights, these ones looked pretty similar, however they were further away for me, and much closer to each other.

-edit-
Sisonek: Unfortunately I couldn't make out much on the map, and the second one didn't seem to post (and copy/pasting URL gave me an error). And as for the first map, it seems a bit dated... it doesn't appear to show any of the new freeways (the 51, 101 or 202). Not that that affects things, but it's a little more difficult to guage things not seeing exactly where I was (or maybe it's all the pretty lines everywhere distracting me =P ). However, based on the guys video and the topographical map it appears that the Northern address is actually more likely, unless there are small mountains not shown on the Topo-map (unlikely). Hope that helps... (definitely in the "general" direction of Luke though)

[edit on 6-23-2004 by ScislaC]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Good discourse on this topic. I live about 10 minutes North of Luke Air Force Base and



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
K... once again my time has been corrected in original post... I reviewed a receipt for dinner that night (my wife's B-day) and luckily it was timestamped, so I was better able to guage the time. We should have been on the 101 between roughly 8:30-8:50. It's good to know you had a constant view of the sky in that area. By any chance was your view where Palo Verde is obscured by anything? Just trying to narrow down possible locations in the sky...

And by malfunctioning apparatus do you mean Napalitano? = P Sorry... had to.

-ScislaC-



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
nepenthean and ScislaC: are these lights getting much press locally? like, more than the article towards the front of the thread? if the az republic or whatever picked this story up maybe some more witnesses and / or photos / videos will start appearing.

thanks for looking at those ScislaC; here's a better link to the map showing the way from the northern address to palo verde:

www.mapquest.com... =0&1y=US&1a=4300+W+CORRINE+DR&1c=GLENDALE&1s=AZ&1z=85304-2128&1ah=&2y=US&2a=&2c=palo+verde&2s=AZ&2z=&2ah=&idx=0&id=40d9fa50-00347-0079b-400c330f&aid=4 0d9fa50-00348-0079b-400c330f

i'm starting to think that the palo verde plant itself is a bit too far away -- look at this map (which has palo verde right about at the center):

terraserver.microsoft.com... 83595&alat=33.600658&w=2&ref=A%7c4300+W+Corrine+Dr%2c+Glendale%2c+AZ+85304

seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

nepenthean, since you sorta live in that area, could you comment some about how far it's usually possible to see at night? like, can you usually see the mountains to the west / the mountains to the south?

at this point i'm kinda running out of ideas. i hope muppet takes a try at fixing that video up a bit and seeing if we can find some identifying landmarks to narrow down possible locations.

the cool thing about this ufo is that it / they didn't really go much of anywhere, so we might be able to figure out pretty much exactly where it was, or at least have a good idea of its whereabouts. if we can do that it shouldn't be hard to debunk this thing if it's fake, cause it'll still be where it was as far as we know (unless it's something temporary that's gone now, like flares or warning towers or whatever).

still, i'm kinda out of ideas for now -- it'll be great if muppet or someone else with skills can polish up that video a bit, and it'd probably be helpful if we got a better sense of where it was, but i'm really running out of ideas. thanks for answering all the questions and dealing with the links, though...sorry about the broken ones.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
sisonek: unfortunately I dunno about much local press, I don't watch the news or read the paper... However it seems to be as of late, anything UFO related only seems to be covered by KPHO. (like the mexico stuff a couple months back)

As I said before, guaging the floating lights distance(s) is damn near impossible for me (land distance I'm not bad, but due to freeway design I was never elevated enough to make out any significant landmarks beneath). It most definitely did not look relatively close though... For them to be out by Palo Verde is still possible though as they were in the correct general direction and my view of (off to the side) foreground mountains.

I dunno, in the past I've thought planes were closer than they were because the light was shining right in my direction, but a few seconds later as the plane shifted a little, it was obvious that it wasn't as close as it appeared. One thing I can say though is that they were about a bright as an airplane light if it's aimed in your direction... all of them being the same intensity (pretty dang bright). Unfortunately my "come and go" view wasn't the best at guaging altitude, distance, or relative location... All I know is it appeared that there was a mountain off to the side in the foreground, but I couldn't guage how far.

I'll get my buddy on here to post his recollection if I can.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a few more thoughts:

ScislaC (and your wife): congratulations on the birthday. also, i've got a hypothesis going now:

if i'm not mistaken the places you were on loop 101 are at a higher elevation (the valley slopes in south of 101 for a while) than nepenthean's house, and you are further northeast. if nepenthean's near the base of white tank mountain he's probably got a pretty limited field of view, and definitely can't see over the mountain.

look at this topo map:

terraserver.microsoft.com... A%7c4300+W+Corrine+Dr%2c+Glendale%2c+AZ+85304

you see white tank mountain and the area just east of it? let's assume that mountain totally blocks nepenthean's view and that nepenthean's somewhere on the east side of it; then there's no way he could see much anything directly west of him, and if he's north of luke air force base then there's a good chunk of stuff to the southwest that he can't really see, either -- and that's at least the general direction of palo verde plant.

so i'm guessing the ufos were in one of two general locations:

a) somewhere kinda northwest of white tank mountain but not really that far north, cause it still looked like it was in the southwestern direction from where you were
b) somewhere nearby to palo verde, or at least further along in that direction.

if b) is right then even if the ufos weren't AT palo verde exactly they were probably visible from there when you saw them -- the distances are pretty similar between where i'm guessing you were and white tank mountain and between white tank mountain and palo verde.

now i'm really out of ideas -- i'm just hoping someone who knows what they're doing takes a crack at touching up that video and maybe bringing out some details on the cliffs. cause, i'm guessing the "cliffs" might be the white tank mountains, and if we can get enough detail on the cliffs then nepenthean can probably tell whether a) or b) is more likely.

i think between you and nepenthean and the video we might be able to pin this location down pretty well after all.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Yea, if anyone can improve the image quality on that vid, it would be easier to triangulate. I asked my dad, who combs through the AZ Republic every morning, if they covered the lights but, no, nothing. No shock there. Only KHPO covered it as far as I know-- and, incidentally, what the anchor had to say was verbatim what their website script read.


Later....



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The pic we've been waiting for!!!

Dunno if he recently added this one or if I just missed it before. It shows the mountain line more clearly...

I saw a thread with the subject of "flares?" and went inside and they had a link to this topic on a different forum, that had that pic had posted.

I'm gonna email Robert and ask him to jump in the discussion here, as well as see if it's possible for him to make a high quality mpeg2 transfer of that from the original source, and from there we can hopefully pull out more detail. (I hope it wasn't a cheap digital video camera he used though... or 80s camcorder either =)

At least we can see the mountain clearly in that shot, as the brightness was so greatly increased.

Muppet: What is your preferred video format?

-ScislaC-

[edit on 6-24-2004 by ScislaC]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Just to report in that I'm not having any luck converting the video at this end.. It turns out I'd need some software I don't have..

Just seen the image above though and that's the mountain ridge I was talking about..The lights stay fixed in relation throughout the video.

If the guy can make an mpg or quicktime from the original source though it would help. Even better if we could get the raw DV footage, but edited down(but re-encoded) so the blurred parts are removed. Given that I should be able to stabilize the image and possibly reconstruct some details by averaging the frames together. It would be a big mother of a file though so I don't know if this would be practical.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I emailed him so hopefully he'll be willing to hook us up with the original DV footage. Maybe if I'm lucky he has a DVD burner and can hook me up with the original DV Source, hopefully I can just give him a blank disc and few bucks for his trouble... = )



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I'm looking at this and I don't particulary recognize that mountains profile. It does appear though that he is taking the video from an elevated position. Like a balcony. I notice the intersection in the bottom left of the video and the still. But the other thing I notice, is that there doesn't appear to be any other structures near the intersection. So that would tend to make me think he was fairly close to the mountain.

I do seem to remember that there is a small mesa near 19th Ave & Cactus. There are also some apartments near there. The intersection is fairly deserted, (or would appear so) if you are facing it from the SW to NE. Which basically would make him facing Scislac's position.

The reason I mention this location is because it is near Thunderbird high school. And if you were facing north from this intersection, you would be facing the high school, which has an athletic field with outdoor lighting. Again I am bringing this up because the coloring looks like arc sodium lights to me. They have that kind of orangish glow.

Again, not trying to say it wasn't, but offer some possiblities to rule out.

ScislaC: Could you ask him where he was when shooting the video?

[edit on 6/24/2004 by phreak_of_nature]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
thanks for looking at the movie, muppet -- wmv files lock their stuff up pretty well on the mac.

i'm no pro but i made these two adjustments:




that aren't "realistic" but make the shape of the mountain easier to see. i guess the ball's in nepenthean's court for the moment -- if he recognizes any of that profile we might have a good sense of where the lights are.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Phreak: I was going through his website and stumbled accross a video that appears to show daytime footage from (hopefully) the same area... then again it may be outdated, and we do have 2 addresses to work off.

Funny thing is it's a weather balloon video.

Daytime Video

My assumption would be that the daytime video was taken at the northern address (given the lack of development surrounding the house). The unfortunate thing is the steep swoop he makes to look up at the sky (can't see if that mountain is there). However, I would be led to believe that it is the same location as the new video though due to him being on a balcony. Hopefully i'll get a response from the email (even more hopefully, he'll join in the discussion).

-ScislaC-



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Not sure if this is the same location, unless in the night time video he is shooting to the right.

As he pans across the mountain in this one, we can see that there is no road/intersection back there. Also, to me, the shape of the mountain doesn't appear correct.

Maybe it's just me, but if you pause it on the frames when you can see the peak of that little mountain, it kind of looks like their are some towers or antennas on it. Can anyone else notice it?

And then there is the fact that this movie is a cutesey little movie about a plane flying into a ballon. Makes me believe that he has learned how to do a little digital editing.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I hope he replies to let us know where he was.

The notes on his website regarding the balloon video say:
"See a clip of the footage I shot for the Discovery Channel's Unsolved History Progam. Is this a real UFO?.....Sorry, just a weather Balloon. Keep in mind this balloon was 500 ft. in diameter and over 100,000 ft. up when I took this footage. A strange sight indeed and one I can understand as being thought of as a UFO. Note: The bit at the end was just a joke for the producers."

It's interesting to me that he's into the unexplained though. At least the plane clip is explained... Also, does the ability to do digital editing seem to matter though? Given the zoom/focus changes (and the fact that I saw them from a different location), it seems pretty hard for him to fake (if that's even what you were getting at).

Eh, who knows... Hopefully we'll get some useful info here soon.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
No, I'm not really implying that he faked it. I can pull off that same little bit too. But it would seem that it could be the location, just not the same angle. I would love to knowif he was shooting to the right for the lights.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Sorry Sisonek, but I am not going to be much assistance in identifying topographic landmarks of this area in that I am kinda new to greater Phoenix.
Definitely would be interesting to see the cameraman add his voice to this discussion though.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I had a chance to lighten up the WMV file. Unfourtunately I couldn't find a way to increase the contrast as well. If anyone is interested in seeing a brighter version of the original, I have posted it here

It's kinda big though, 3.9 Mb.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   
check this out:



the picture below is kinda confusing, but here's the idea:

the pink dot is about where ScislaC said he was when he saw the lights; i'm guessing he was looking southwest at about the angle the pink cone makes. Scisla C: does the direction of the "vieing triangle" look about right? or does it need some rotation?

the red dot is one of kritausky's houses and i'm also just guessing he looked vaguely southwest -- if he comes on the board or answers ScislaC's email we might get more info out of him and correct the angle if it's off.

the cyan dot is about where i'm guessing nepenthean lives from how he described it, and the blue triangles are the north/south view he'd have had during the tennis game.

thus the lights need to have been in the pink and red area but not the cyan area; i put a black line along what i think is the mountain in the night video and then put a dot about where the lights "look" like they are.

assuming that the black dot and the cyan dot are right for the moment, this explains a lot already:

nepenthean didn't see the lights because his view that way would have been blocked by the mountain; ScislaC and mr kritausky had unblocked views.

nepenthean: if i'm identifying the ridge correctly and have your house in about the right location, the mountain should look like that if you go a mile or two so south of your house and look to the southwest, but won't look quite like that from where your house is; take a look next time you're headed that way and let us know.

As for the ridge I also made this, which is a closer view with more of the topo lines visible:



it's still hard to see the topo lines in that so here's a link to the full-size map i got it from:

terraserver.microsoft.com... %7c4300+W+Corrine+Dr%2c+Glendale%2c+AZ+85304

i'm not sure that the line i've drawn is totally right, but i'm pretty sure it's the right general area.

when i was putting this together i saw that the mountain has a lot of beacons on it -- they're on the map in the link and i've put pink dots over them in the close-up look. at first i thought we had an explanation right there, because there's seven beacons and seven lights in the video, but then i noticed the beacons aren't at the same relative heights as the lights in the video; looking from the northeast the first on the left should be the lowest, but it's higher than the next one.

on the other hand, it could be the case that the beacon towers are different enough in height to make up for the differences in elevation and get the right look, though -- if any of you locals want to call the park service or whoever administers those beacons we could probably get an answer on this one real quick.

so, we've now got a rough possible location and a possible explanation for the lights; any more info / ideas?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join